Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
It appearing upon oral argument that in the normal course the fee for petitioner's United States patent must be paid by May 25, 1959, and that the patent will issue shortly after payment of the fee, the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions.
Reported below: 103 U.S. App. D.C. 204, 257 F.2d 208.
Carleton U. Edwards II and Joseph Y. Houghton argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was Bernard Margolius.
Leonard B. Sand argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Samuel D. Slade, Lionel Kestenbaum, Loren K. Olson and Roland A. Anderson.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Elisha Hanson, Arthur B. Hanson and Calvin H. Cobb, Jr. for the American Chemical Society, and by Carlton S. Dargusch and Carlton S. Dargusch, Jr. for Engineers Joint Council, Inc.
PER CURIAM.
Upon oral argument, it appeared that in the normal course the fee for petitioner's United States patent must be paid by May 25, 1959, and that the patent will issue shortly after payment of the fee. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the District Court and that court is instructed: (1) If petitioner has by May 25, 1959, paid the patent fee for his patent, and has not requested a suspension or delay in the issuance thereof, or has withdrawn any such request theretofore made, to continue the [359 U.S. 115, 116] case and the restraining orders entered herein by THE CHIEF JUSTICE until the patent issues, and then to dismiss the complaint as moot; (2) otherwise, on May 25, 1959, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, apart from the merits of the controversy, the grant of the extraordinary equitable relief of an injunction at that stage of the proceedings would not be warranted. Upon the fulfillment of either of these conditions, the proceedings heretofore had in the two lower courts are vacated.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 359 U.S. 115
Docket No: No. 339
Argued: March 05, 1959
Decided: March 23, 1959
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)